DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment Civic Report No. 32 December 2002 Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment Jay P. Greene, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and Greg Forster, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research C C i CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION A T THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE Civic Report 32 December 2002 Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report examines the effect of state funding systems and high stakes testing on special education enroll- ment. It specifically finds that: • Nationally, special education enrollment grew from 10.6% of all students to 12.3% during the study period, from the 1991–92 school year to 2000-01. • During this period, 33 states and the District of Columbia had “bounty” funding systems, which create financial incentives to place children in special education. Sixteen states had “lump-sum” funding systems, which do not create such incentives. New Hampshire had no state funding system until 1999. • There is a statistically significant positive relationship between bounty funding systems and growth in special education enrollment. Bounty funding results in an additional enrollment increase of 1.24 percentage points over ten years. • The effect of the bounty system accounts for 62% of the enrollment growth experienced by bounty states during the study period. This represents roughly 390,000 extra students in special education, resulting in additional spending of over $2.3 billion per year. • If all bounty states had switched to lump-sum systems in 1994–95, their special education enrollments in 2000–01 would have been lower by an average of 0.82 percentage points. This represents roughly 258,000 students and over $1.5 billion per year in extra spending. • Between 1991–92 and 2000–01, 29 states and the District of Columbia employed high stakes testing, and 21 did not. • High stakes testing has no statistically significant effect on special education enrollment. • The average (i.e. not weighted by population) state enrollment level in the states that had lump-sum funding during the study period rose from 11.1% to 12.4%, an increase of 1.3 percentage points. • The average enrollment level in states with bounty funding rose from 10.5% to 12.8%, an increase of 2.3 percentage points. • Total special education enrollment under lump-sum funding systems grew from 10.5% to 11.5%, a 1 percentage point change. • By comparison, total special education enrollment under bounty funding systems increased by 2 percentage points, from 10.6% to 12.6%. December 2002 Civic Report 32 ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jay P. Greene is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research where he conducts research and writes about education policy. He has conducted evaluations of school choice and accountability pro- grams in Florida, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and San Antonio. He has also investigated the effects of school choice on civic values and integration. His research was cited four times in the Supreme Court’s opinions in the landmark Zelman v. Simmons- Harris case on school vouchers. His articles have appeared in policy journals, such as The Public Interest, City Journal, and Education Next, in academic journals, such as The Georgetown Public Policy Review, Educa- tion and Urban Society, and The British Journal of Political Science, as well as in major newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor. Most recently he published a piece on vouchers and school integration in the Wall Street Journal, analyses of problems with special education in Education Week, Na- tional Review Online and The Education Gadfly, and a defense of high stakes testing in Education Next. Greene has been a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Houston. He received his B.A. in history from Tufts University in 1988 and his Ph.D. from the Government Department at Harvard University in 1995. He lives with his wife and three children in Weston, Florida. Greg Forster is a Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute’s Education Research Office. He is the co-author of several education studies and op-ed articles. He received a Ph.D. with distinction in Politi- cal Science from Yale University in May 2002, and his B.A. from the University of Virginia, where he double-majored in Political and Social Thought and Rhetoric and Communications Studies, in 1995. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Matt Ladner of Children First America for his useful suggestions and support, and the staff of the federal and state departments of education for all their assistance in gathering information on special education financing arrangements. December 2002 Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1 Previous Research .............................................................................................................................. 1 Method............................................................................................................................................... 4 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Table 1: State Special Education Funding Systems ............................................................................ 6 Figure 1: U.S. Special Education Enrollment, 1991–2000 .................................................................. 7 Figure 2: Special Education Enrollments under Bounty and Lump-Sum Systems, 1991–2000 .......... 7 Figure 3: Average Special Education Enrollment in Lump-Sum and Bounty States, 1991–2000 ....... 7 Figure 4: Actual and Projected Special Education Enrollment in Bounty States, 1991–2000 ............ 8 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 8 References........................................................................................................................................ 11 Endnotes .......................................................................................................................................... 13 December 2002 Civic Report 32 December 2002 EFFECTS OF FUNDING INCENTIVES ON SPECIAL EDUCATION ENROLLMENT Introduction cial education enrollment grew a total of 1.24 per- centage points more than it would have if these states Over the past decade, the U.S. special education en- had lump-sum funding systems, accounting for a full rollment rate has increased from 10.6% of all stu- 62% of these states’ total increase in special educa- dents to 12.3%. The rate of growth is accelerating tion enrollment. This represents approximately and shows no sign of slowing down, and policy 390,000 extra students placed in special education makers are anxious to determine why. Critics of the because of the bounty system, resulting in additional U.S. special education system argue that it creates spending of over $2.3 billion per year. Using another perverse financial incentives to label children as dis- method that is more sensitive to the timing of abled. School districts have traditionally received changes in states’ funding systems, we estimate that state funding based on the size of their special edu- if all bounty system states had switched to lump- cation programs, so in effect they receive a bounty sum systems in the 1994–95 school year, their spe- for each child they place in special education. Crit- cial education enrollments in the 2000–01 school year ics claim that this rewards schools for placing stu- would have been lower by an average of 0.82 per- dents in special education unnecessarily. Some centage points. This margin represents a difference defenders of the system argue that special educa- of roughly 258,000 students and over $1.5 billion per tion enrollment is growing because the real incidence year in extra spending. In light of these findings, re- of disabilities in children is growing, but this expla- forms that would remove the perverse incentives of nation does not withstand scrutiny very well. A num- bounty funding systems—such as switching to ber of researchers are now pointing towards still lump-sum systems or offering private school schol- another culprit: perverse incentives arising not from arships to disabled children—are urgently needed. funding systems but from high-stakes testing. When schools are held accountable for students’ perfor- Previous Research mance on standardized tests, they have an incentive to remove the lowest-scoring students from the test- Enrollment in special education has been growing ing pool by placing them in special education, where steadily for decades, and the rate of growth has been they will be exempt from testing requirements. accelerating for the past ten years. Already high— over 10% of the student population—at the begin- Several states, struggling to cope with the ever-ac- ning of the 1990s, special education enrollment is celerating growth of special education, have adopted now approaching 13% and shows no sign of slow- new funding systems that eliminate the bounty for ing down. Since special education students are a sig- new special education students. An even larger num- nificantly greater burden on schools than regular ber of states
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GLOBAL CENSORSHIP Shifting Modes, Persisting Paradigms
    ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH GLOBAL CENSORSHIP Shifting Modes, Persisting Paradigms edited by Pranesh Prakash Nagla Rizk Carlos Affonso Souza GLOBAL CENSORSHIP Shifting Modes, Persisting Paradigms edited by Pranesh Pra ash Nag!a Ri" Car!os Affonso So$"a ACCESS %O KNO'LE(GE RESEARCH SERIES COPYRIGHT PAGE © 2015 Information Society Project, Yale Law School; Access to Knowle !e for "e#elo$ment %entre, American Uni#ersity, %airo; an Instituto de Technolo!ia & Socie a e do Rio+ (his wor, is $'-lishe s'-ject to a %reati#e %ommons Attri-'tion./on%ommercial 0%%.1Y./%2 3+0 In. ternational P'-lic Licence+ %o$yri!ht in each cha$ter of this -oo, -elon!s to its res$ecti#e a'thor0s2+ Yo' are enco'ra!e to re$ro 'ce, share, an a a$t this wor,, in whole or in part, incl' in! in the form of creat . in! translations, as lon! as yo' attri-'te the wor, an the a$$ro$riate a'thor0s2, or, if for the whole -oo,, the e itors+ Te4t of the licence is a#aila-le at <https677creati#ecommons+or!7licenses7-y.nc73+07le!alco e8+ 9or $ermission to $'-lish commercial #ersions of s'ch cha$ter on a stan .alone -asis, $lease contact the a'thor, or the Information Society Project at Yale Law School for assistance in contactin! the a'thor+ 9ront co#er ima!e6 :"oc'ments sei;e from the U+S+ <m-assy in (ehran=, a $'-lic omain wor, create by em$loyees of the Central Intelli!ence A!ency / em-assy of the &nite States of America in Tehran, de$ict.
    [Show full text]
  • Disciplining Criminal Justice: the Peril Amid the Promise of Numbers
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Disciplining Criminal Justice: The Peril amid the Promise of Numbers Mary De Ming Fan* Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2 Governing Governance and the Manufacture of "Objective" Visibility ............ 1O A. The Law of Making Performance Visible ................................................ 14 B. Difficulties Defining Criminal Justice in the Idiom of Targets .............. 16 C. Bending the Bounds of the Officially Sanctioned .................................. 24 II. Expressive, Expiatory "Deliverables". ............................................................. 27 A. At the Point of Policy Failure ................................................................... 30 B. Numbers that Do Not Attain Aims ......................................................... 36 C. What Expiation by Numerical Proxy Effaces ......................................... 42 1. Aim ing Beyond the Baseline ............................................................ 42 2. Effacing H igher Aim s ........................................................................ 49 III. Toward a Policy Embrace of Values and Numbers in Qualitative Context ... 57 A. Q ualitative Perspective ............................................................................ 57 B. How Law and Policy Can Be Conducive to Qualitative Evaluation ........... 59 C on clusion ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Please Don't Aim for a Highly Cited Paper
    AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES’ REVIEW Please don’t aim for a highly cited paper Michael C Calver Murdoch University Citation-based metrics are important in determining careers, so it is unsurprising that recent publications advise prospective authors on how to write highly cited papers. While such publications offer excellent advice on structuring and presenting manuscripts, there are significant downsides, including: restrictions in the topics researched, incentives to misconduct and possible detriments to motivation, innovation and collegiality. Guides to writing highly cited papers also assume that all citations are equal, ignoring new directions in bibliometric research identifying ‘quality’ and perfunctory citations. Rather than pursuing citations, with the uncertainty about their significance and the potential negative consequences, authors may fare better by following evidence from several disciplines indicating that persistence, a focused research program, good methodology and publishing in relevant journals are more important in career development and disciplinary influence than the odd star paper. Research administrators could encourage such steps by considering innovative new multivariate assessments of research productivity, including assessing social impact. Keywords: citation, quality citation, motivation, misconduct, innovation, highly cited Introduction and clarity of style, encouraging people to aim consciously to write highly cited papers is concerning Increasingly, researchers find their track records under for five main reasons: (i) it narrows the scope of research scrutiny as supervisors and funding agencies seek the undertaken or published; (ii) the focus on reward most successful groups to fund, or individuals to reward may reduce intrinsic motivation, innovation and true with appointments, promotion, tenure or prizes (Corsi, collaboration but encourage mistakes and misconduct; D’Ippoliti & Lucidi, 2010; Oswald, 2010; Teixeira et al., (iii) despite substantial research, the significance of 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Patient Flow Management Practices in the New Era of Health Reform
    The Future of Patient Flow Management Practices in the New Era of Health Reform David J Yu, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM Medical Director, Adult Inpatient Medicine Service Presbyterian Medical Group ACA: Affordable Care Act ACO: Accountable Care Organizations • “It is anticipated that ACOs will increasingly be reimbursed under a capitated model that incentivizes optimal quality, safety, efficiency, and health outcomes for populations of patients.” – J. Haugham, MD, D. Burton, MD, HealthCatalyst Value over Volume: Quality over Quantity • Revenue at Risk • Patient Experience • Complication Consequences • Population Health Medicare Advantage Enrollment Bundle Payments • Payment for Episodes of Care – Hospital cost – Professional fee: all physician charges – Ancillary Service – SNF, Rehab • Middle ground between FFS and Capitation • Based on delivering episode of care at a lower price Payment Transparency • Commercial Insurance % of Medicare • ? Demise of Hospital Chargemaster Revenue Center versus Cost Center Patient Flow Traditional View • ED Physician Process owner • Discharge before noon • Observation units • Push patients up to medicine / surgical floor • Hall beds in ED/ Floor Patient Flow: Age of ACA • “A comprehensive, strategic initiative that hospitals need to align all their clinical departments, departmental budgets, and administrative processes around to achieve.” – Today’s Hospitalist, October 2014, David Yu, MD Patient Flow as a Strategic Initiative • How do you model financial efficiency in a cost center model? • No revenue generation
    [Show full text]
  • Economics of Malware: Security Decisions, Incentives and Externalities
    OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2008/01 Economics of Malware: Michel J. G. van Eeten, Security Decisions, Johannes M. Bauer Incentives and Externalities https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/241440230621 Unclassified DSTI/DOC(2008)1 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 29-May-2008 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY Unclassified DSTI/DOC(2008)1 ECONOMICS OF MALWARE: SECURITY DECISIONS, INCENTIVES AND EXTERNALITIES STI WORKING PAPER 2008/1 Information and Communication Technologies Michel J.G. van Eeten and Johannes M. Bauer English - Or. English JT03246705 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/DOC(2008)1 STI Working Paper Series The Working Paper series of the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry is designed to make available to a wider readership selected studies prepared by staff in the Directorate or by outside consultants working on OECD projects. The papers included in the series cover a broad range of issues, of both a technical and policy-analytical nature, in the areas of work of the DSTI. The Working Papers are generally available only in their original language – English or French – with a summary in the other. Comments on the papers are invited, and should be sent to the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. The opinions expressed in these papers are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries.
    [Show full text]
  • John Bates Clark As a Pioneering Neoclassical Economist Thomas C
    “A Certain Rude Honesty”: John Bates Clark as a Pioneering Neoclassical Economist Thomas C. Leonard John Bates Clark (1847–1938), the most eminent American economist of a century ago, was, in his own day, caricatured as an apologist for laissez-faire capitalism (Veblen 1908).1 The caricature has shown stay- ing power, a measure, perhaps, of the relative paucity of scholarship on Clark and his work. Recent Clark research signals a welcome attempt at a more accurate portrait (Morgan 1994; Henry 1995; Persky 2000). But some revisionists would remake Clark the apologist for capital into Clark the Progressive exemplar. Robert Prasch (1998, 2000), for exam- ple, depicts Clark as a Progressive paragon, which groups him with the greatreformers of Progressive-Era politicaleconomy—Social Gospel- ers such as Richard T. Ely and his protégé John R. Commons, labor leg- islation activists such as Clark’s junior colleague Henry Rogers Seager Correspondence may be addressed to Thomas C. Leonard, Department of Economics, Fisher Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; e-mail: [email protected]. I wish to ac- knowledge the gracious hospitality of Rolf Ohlsson and the Department of Economic History at Lund University, Lund, Sweden. This essay benefited from conversations with Benny Carls- son, the comments of Deirdre McCloskey and Bob Goldfarb, and the thoughtful criticisms of two anonymous referees. 1. All successful caricatures contain an element of truth, and Clark surely invited contro- versy when he argued thatworkers paid theirmarginal productgetwhatthey
    [Show full text]
  • Ahteg Technology Transfer and Cooperation
    CBD Distr. GENERAL UNEP/CBD/WS-Incentives/3/2 4 September 2009 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION OF PERVERSE, AND THE PROMOTION OF POSITIVE, INCENTIVE MEASURES Paris, 6–8 October 2009 Items 3 and 4 of the provisional agenda* ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT INFORMATION ON THE IMPACTS OF POSITIVE AND PERVERSE INCENTIVES Note by the Executive Secretary I. INTRODUCTION 1. In paragraph 6 of decision IX/6, on incentive measures, the Conference of the Parties requested the Executive Secretary to convene an international workshop on the removal and mitigation of perverse, and the promotion of positive, incentive measures, consisting of government-nominated practitioners with balanced regional representation, as well as experts from relevant organizations and stakeholders. The mandate of the workshop is: (a) To collect, exchange and analyse information, including case-studies on, good practices for, and lessons learned from, concrete and practical experiences in identifying and removing or mitigating perverse incentive measures, and in promoting positive incentive measures; and (b) To identify a limited number of good-practice cases from different regions, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at a meeting prior to the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, and for review by the Conference of the Parties at its tenth meeting. 2. In paragraph 7 of the same decision, the Conference of the Parties requested the Executive Secretary to compile and analyse relevant information, including analyses and studies from relevant international organizations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), on the impacts of positive and perverse incentive measures, to disseminate this information through the clearing-house mechanism of the Convention, and to make it available to the workshop.
    [Show full text]
  • A Realist Synthesis of the Collation, Interpretation and Utilisation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Data to Improve Patient Care
    HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH VOLUME 5 ISSUE 2 JANUARY 2017 ISSN 2050-4349 Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care Joanne Greenhalgh, Sonia Dalkin, Kate Gooding, Elizabeth Gibbons, Judy Wright, David Meads, Nick Black, Jose Maria Valderas and Ray Pawson DOI 10.3310/hsdr05020 Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care Joanne Greenhalgh,1* Sonia Dalkin,2 Kate Gooding,1 Elizabeth Gibbons,3 Judy Wright,1 David Meads,1 Nick Black,4 Jose Maria Valderas5 and Ray Pawson1 1School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK 2Department of Public Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 3Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 4Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK 5Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK *Corresponding author Declared competing interests of authors: none Disclaimer: This report contains transcripts of interviews from studies identified during the course of the research and contains language that may offend some readers. Published January 2017 DOI: 10.3310/hsdr05020 This report should be referenced as follows: Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gooding K, Gibbons E, Wright J, Meads D, et al. Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Health Serv Deliv Res 2017;5(2). Health Services and Delivery Research ISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).
    [Show full text]
  • The Productivity Commission's Executive Pay Inquiry: an Update on the Issues
    The Productivity Commission’s executive pay inquiry: an update on the issues* Gary Banks Chairman, Productivity Commission This inquiry came into being because of ‘sticker shock’ in the community about CEO pay and hefty payouts, at a time when company values have been plummeting and some firms have secured taxpayer funded assistance. There is also the G20’s view that executive remuneration practices encouraged excessive risk taking, and actively contributed to failure in the financial sector which triggered the global financial crisis. The depth of community concern was reflected in many of the early submissions we received, which describe executive remuneration and termination payments in terms such as unjustified, unfair, immoral, and obscene. In announcing the inquiry, the Government referred to such concerns, declaring: The Rudd Government is determined to ensure regulation of executive pay keeps pace with community expectations, particularly as job losses increase. While the unease about executive pay is palpable, understanding whether or how government could assuage it without causing even bigger problems is not straightforward. That the Commission has been given the task — with nine months to investigate and analyse the issues — demonstrates that the Government is well aware of the risks of hasty intervention in this area. Like them or loathe them, large public companies and the executives who run them, play an integral role in the overall performance of the Australian economy, and any regulatory changes would need to avoid ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’. Central to the Commission’s modus operandi are its extensive consultations and the reliance on a public draft report to test preliminary findings and recommendations well before formulating a final report.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Law Section Summary Report on Healthcare Costs: Legal Issues, Barriers and Solutions
    Health Law Section Summary Report on Healthcare Costs: Legal Issues, Barriers and Solutions August, 2009 • lack of payer incentives to promote appropriate utilization Summary Report on Healthcare Costs: Legal Issues, Barriers and Solutions • legal barriers to changing a healthcare payment system that rewards utilization The costs of the healthcare system are an ever in- creasing drain on the federal budget, the economy, and • how a change in the law may be considered to on employers, particularly small employers. Total health allow “quality performance payment programs” spending in the United States is currently 16 percent of whereby hospitals may make payments to physi- gross domestic product (GDP), up from eight percent cians for improvement in measured quality or in 1975, and without changes, is projected to reach 25 sustained levels of quality 1 percent by 2025. Medicare and Medicaid comprise more • comparative effectiveness research and clini- than 25 percent of the federal budget. Medicaid alone cal practice guidelines’ role in preventing comprised approximately 22 percent of total state spend- overutilization, ing in fi scal 2007, with a projected spending growth rate of eight percent annually for the next decade, according • legal concerns of providers leading to high “list to a report released December 5, 2007 by the National prices” charged to the uninsured, and laws that cap Governors Association.2 Overall, states’ single largest charges by hospitals to the indigent expenditure for fi scal 2007 was healthcare, accounting for 3 • legal barriers to transparency/sharing of healthcare on average nearly one-third of state spending. providers’ charges for services Healthcare costs also have social and public policy • the role of statewide and regional health planning consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • American Predatory Lending and the Global Financial Crisis
    AMERICAN PREDATORY LENDING AND THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS ORAL HISTORY PROJECT Interview with Arthur Wilmarth Bass Connections Duke University 2020 PREFACE The following Oral History is the result of a recorded interview with Arthur Wilmarth conducted by Andrew O’Shaughnessy on August 11, 2020. This interview is part of the Bass Connections American Predatory Lending and the Global Financial Crisis Project. Readers are asked to bear in mind that they are reading a transcript of spoken word, rather than written prose. The transcript has been reviewed and approved by the interviewee. Wilmarth - 1 Transcriber: Patrick Rochelle Session: 1 Interviewee: Arthur Wilmarth Location: By Zoom Interviewer: Andrew O’Shaughnessy Date: August 11, 2020 Andrew O’Shaughnessy: My name is Andrew O'Shaughnessy. I am a JD candidate at the Duke University School of Law. I am also a research assistant for the Global Financial Market Center’s American Predatory Lending project. It is Tuesday, August 11th, 2020. I am speaking remotely with professor Arthur Wilmarth to conduct an oral history interview. Professor Wilmarth. Thank you for joining me today. Arthur Wilmarth: Well, thank you for inviting me. It's a pleasure. Andrew O’Shaughnessy: We'd like to start by establishing a little bit about your background. So, I understand you got your bachelor's from Yale and your JD from Harvard. So what led you from law school to the faculty at GW? Arthur Wilmarth: Well, I graduated from Harvard in ‘75 and joined a Washington law firm to practice there for four years, with [an intervening period] of several months working as … an exchange lawyer with a firm of solicitors in London.
    [Show full text]
  • Precipice Regulations and Perverse Incentives: Comparing Historic Preservation Designation and Endangered Species Listing
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Precipice Regulations and Perverse Incentives: Comparing Historic Preservation Designation and Endangered Species Listing J. Peter Byrne Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1494 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2628236 27 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 343-392 (2015) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Animal Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons, and the Housing Law Commons ARTICLES Precipice Regulations and Perverse Incentives: Comparing Historic Preservation Designation and Endangered Species Listing J. PETER BYRNE* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction............................................... 343 I. Scheduling Resources for Protection: Designation and Listing........ 347 A. Historic Preservation ............................... 348 B. Endangered Species ................................ 354 C. Similarities Between Designation and Listing ............... 358 II. Procedural Fixes...................................... 362 A. Reaching Back ................................... 363 B. Staying Designation or Listing ......................... 369 C. Retroactive Liability................................ 377 D. Lack of Enforcement ..............................
    [Show full text]